From: Alex Conley (aconley@panisse.lbl.gov)
Date: Sat Mar 15 2003 - 20:54:14 PST
This was one of the conclusions of the refitting that I did, which
admittedly was probably too boring for anybody but Rob to actually look at
in detail. There were three SNe in the 42 that displayed this behavior.
sn921, sn9794 (97aj) and one other which I don't recall off of the top of
my head. Possibly we (probably meaning me) should formalize this in some
critereon and reject these three objects. I haven't checked the HST ones
yet.
Also -- I talked briefly to Don last week about putting an error on
the template, since I knew that was part of the problem we have
been having with the lightcurve fits from the first teleconference.
He said he would think about how to do it, although it certainly won't
be happening in this paper. SNAP, and probably the SNFactory, will
definitely need something like that, however. Exactly how we will go
about deriving a good error-snake isn't clear, however.
Also note that while giving the template an error is a good idea, it
may still not be the right thing to do conceptually for the tail fit.
If stretch doesn't work at all in the nebular phase, as many have
suggested, then simply putting an error on the template isn't the
right thing to do.
In any case, doing this even vaguely right is over the horizon for this
discussion, but I definitely support the idea of the error floor as a
kludgy way to try and achieve the same thing that is probably adequate
for the purposes of this investigation.
Alex
On Sat, 15 Mar 2003, Robert A. Knop Jr. wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 15, 2003 at 12:07:48PM -0800, Greg Aldering wrote:
> >
> > You may recall that SN1997aj was spotted as having a big difference
> > in stretch between P99 and Rob's analysis. In Goldhaber 2001 there is
> > a specific footnote:
> >
> > The fits for SN 1997aj undergo a large change in stretch, from 0.94 to
> > 1.52, in going from the template SCP1997 to Parab-20. Because of this
> > feature, this SN was excluded by AKN00 and in the 30 SN sample here.
>
> Note -- that is 9794
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Mar 15 2003 - 20:54:45 PST